Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

Conversely if there is one piece of evidence that exonerates someone that's all it takes.

Since all known evidence points to a TOD of no later than 9:30 and the kids were still at home that exonerates them.

Although the fact that no evidence of their being in Meredith's room isn't proof of innocence it is certainly consistent with innocence.

Having no violence in their history is consistent with innocence.

Lacking a believable motive is consistent with innocence.

The tenuous connection between Rudy and the kids is consistent with innocence.

No sign of blood in Raffaele's flat is consistent with innocence.

The PGP are using the spaghetti against the wall approach.

 

[Grinder]

If they are suggesting that Amanda had a nose bleed through Meredith trying to defend herself, there would be blood in Meredith's room. Noses will bleed following the direct impact - they won't start bleeding ten minutes later once you've left the room. A nose bleed will typically produce a large amount of blood and would have been found in abundance. I've worked in A&E and I know what a nose bleed is like.

They say that the stress caused her to start bleeding spontaneously. They used this spaghetti toss because the small mark on her neck showed no sign of bleeding.

 

[davefoc]

[Responding to davefoc's claim that mixed blood would be evidence of guilt]Why and Why?


To start with, What is necessary to determine that you actually have a mixed blood sample? We have tests for blood and even specific tests for human blood. We also have tests for DNA that can determine if a sample contains a mixture of DNA from two people. But the DNA test doesn't tell you if the DNA being detected came from blood cells or something else. One way to make this determination would be to exclude the "something else". This is what substrate testing is for. If you can show that there is no DNA on the surface where the blood was found, that would help confirm that the mixed DNA in the blood sample was due to mixed blood. There is no video of anyone taking a substrate test in the cottage. There are no biological samples represented as substrate tests. In short, the "something else" cannot be excluded. Making a claim of mixed blood without substrate testing is simply bad science.

I am unaware of any mixed blood, per se. Nor am I aware of any credible arguments, by the prosecution or by pro-guilt posters, of same. Conti & Vecchiotti demonstrated that the CSI's swabbing techniques were flawed, and could quite easily have picked up Amanda's DNA -- from brushing her teeth, washing her face, cleaning her pierced ear, etc. -- as they swiped Meredith's blood in the sink.

Incidentally, there is also a crime scene photo of Amanda's pillow, showing a round blood stain -- perhaps about the size of a quarter? -- that seems obviously consistent with blood from an ear piercing gone awry. Coupled with this, the small sample of Amanda's blood on the bathroom faucet makes perfect sense, and is explainable as something other than her involvement in murder. The apparently mildly infected ear piercing is the only supportable example of an open wound on Amanda Knox.

There was a small spot of Knox's blood that was separate, meaning not mixed with Meredith's DNA. That is the only part that is clearly blood.

IMO, even if it could be proven to be Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's blood (which it can't), there would have to be something else to indicate when and from what the Knox blood came from. Traces of someone's blood in their own bathroom is not proof of participation in a murder. It would have to be some unexpectedly large amount, or from some injury that is consistent with participating in the attack.

Thank you to all who responded. The situation was more complicated than I realized. To summarize:
1. There is no evidence of mixed blood. The sample that was presented as mixed blood contained DNA from Kercher and Knox but there was no evidence that sample contained any blood of Knox. It is probably likely that any DNA found in the bathroom has an innocent explanation given that Knox used the bathroom. Given the collection technique for the sample it is particularly like that some of Knox's DNA would have been collected in the sample.
2. Even if the sample had consisted of mixed blood the small size and the fact that it was found in the bathroom, a location where the existence of Knox's blood would not be surprising, suggest that this "evidence" would not be evidence of guilt.
3. A small drop of Knox's blood was found in the bathroom. She did not have any wounds that might have been caused by participation in a violent event so that the existence of a small drop of Knox's blood is not probative evidence of participation in the murder of Kercher. The fact that Knox had bled lightly from a pierced ear is one possible explanation for the blood drop. Presumably blood from menstruation would be another.

So halides1 point that there was no evidence of mixed blood appears to be correct and the general point that there is no probative value to this "evidence" appears to still be correct. Why is it that the people who have argued for guilt here have not responded to halides1 post on this? Is it because they are not prepared to acknowledge any facts that don't support their views?

 

[Grinder]

classic line "So, they are really idiots, but when the theory needs them to be geniuses they are geniuses"

They were "smart" and "clever" enough to realize the needed to stage Rudy's break-in but forgot that they needed to coordinate their alibi story. Since they only needed to cover a couple of hours how difficult could that be?

They were able to eliminate most all evidence but forgot blood on the sink and the bathmat.

Instead of going to Gubbio and being away on a scheduled trip, they hang at the cottage.

Raffaele forgets he stepped on the bathmat and they don't just wash it in the tub and toss it in the washer.

 

[Grinder]

I've been having a conversation about Marriott offline. I've tried to point out that the PG side has been misled on a number of issues by the likes of TM and other PG leaders.

This person insists that Marriott was an anchor for CBS. None of this really means diddly but the point is no matter what, he refuses to concede that he was just a local reporter for the CBS affiliate in Seattle.

This is a link to Marriott's bio: http://www.spoke.com/info/p6IWrQN/DavidMarriott

When pressed he sent the quote below. It is a comment on Elizabeth Vargas' Facebook by someone calling themselves Akshay Sarma. His proof is a comment.

I bring this up only to point out how deluded they can be. Does he really think I wouldn't notice it's a comment on facebook.

TONIGHT (12/4/09) ON 20/20 | Facebook
Dec 4, 2009 – Who is David Marriott? He's a former CBS news anchor who helped found the PR firm but retains strong ties to the media. ...

"Gogerty-Stark-Marriott is the Seattle PR firm that the Knox family hired. One of the principles (and pretty much chief Knox spokesperson) is David Marriott. Who is David Marriott? He's a former CBS news anchor who helped found the PR firm but retains strong ties to the media. This is actually interesting because 48 Hours, a show that pro Amanda Knox people reference, is produced by CBS. Also most of the "expert witnesses" testimony that people cite for her innocence came from CBS hired consultants for that particular show. Also, check out the CBS news feed on Youtube, amazing they have every single anchor/journalist that makes their national news team on the case and saying the exact same thing!

 

[charlatan]

All we're getting is a parroting of the prosecution case, no matter how self-evidently erroneous and quite possibly mendacious. It's a bit sad, really.

What's truly mind-boggling to me at this late date is the number of guilter claims floating around in various online fora that are easily debunked by the Massei report itself. It's still common to hear that Raffaele called 112 after the Postal Police arrived, or that the crime scene was thoroughly bleached, or that various items that were inadmissible or never brought up in court are somehow going to magically be entered as evidence against the accused.

You would think these people would cross-check their bible, but then I suppose a certain hand-wavy dismissal of the details tends to favor the pro-guilt position. If you don't look at things too closely the prosecution might still have a case.

 

[NancyS]

They were "smart" and "clever" enough to realize the needed to stage Rudy's break-in but forgot that they needed to coordinate their alibi story. Since they only needed to cover a couple of hours how difficult could that be?

And then even though they 'staged a break-in', Amanda decided to tell the police she had found the door unlocked the next morning. And even though she apparently performed a a massive clean-up and somehow scrubbed herself and all her clothes, she must have been lying about having a shower as her hair looked messy.

 

[Rolfe]

Look at this image.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxhair.jpg

First, I don't see any conclusive evidence in that picture that Knox's hair hadn't been recently washed. And second, did she claim to have washed her hair? There are such things as shower caps you know.

Rolfe.

 

[NancyS]

And if she was actually involved in the murder, the first thing any sensible person would do is shower. Do people really believe that she spent the night cleaning up the evidence, but didn't shower?

 

[Malkmus]

Look at this image.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxhair.jpg

First, I don't see any conclusive evidence in that picture that Knox's hair hadn't been recently washed. And second, did she claim to have washed her hair? There are such things as shower caps you know.

Rolfe.

Hey, Rolfe, she testified to blow drying her hair after she showered. I think if she didn't use a straightener it would look like that after blow drying.

 

[Rolfe]

And if she was actually involved in the murder, the first thing any sensible person would do is shower. Do people really believe that she spent the night cleaning up the evidence, but didn't shower?

[Shhhhhh. You're not supposed to say that.... ]

Rolfe.

 

[Malkmus]

And if she was actually involved in the murder, the first thing any sensible person would do is shower. Do people really believe that she spent the night cleaning up the evidence, but didn't shower?

The idea that she didn't shower actually goes against the pro-guilt theory that she and Raf were covered and blood and had to have showered to get the blood off their feet and wherever else.

 

[Rolfe]

Hey, Rolfe, she testified to blow drying her hair after she showered. I think if she didn't use a straightener it would look like that after blow drying.

Oh, there's nothing incongruous about the appearance of her hair at all. Different people's hair looks different after washing anyway. I just wondered if she had actually said she'd washed her hair, as it's perfectly possible to take a shower without doing that.

And yes, deciding that she took part in a bloody murder because she said she showered but didn't, is pretty weird.

Rolfe.

 

[snook1]

And if she was actually involved in the murder, the first thing any sensible person would do is shower. Do people really believe that she spent the night cleaning up the evidence, but didn't shower?

No, guilters believe that Amanda and Raffaele got caught by the postal police while cleaning etc.

The problem is, when they had the time to change clothes, get rid of them and when did they clean themselves? In their version Amanda didn't shower that morning...It's just not adding up at all.

 

[katy_did]

I also noticed some commentary on the scream.

For a start if Rudy said there was one there was. That's it.
He'd believe that other people could also say there was and he'd know.

I tend to disagree. 'The scream' was widely reported in the media after Amanda's statement was released (perhaps the handful of 'ear witnesses' who later came forward claiming to have heard a scream were influenced by that early press coverage). Guede would likely have read that coverage, so it doesn't seem all that unlikely he decided to weave this apparent 'truth' into his own account.

Guede also needed 'the scream' to have happened to make his story work. He said he was in the bathroom listening to his ipod when he heard it - a scream loud enough to be heard over the sound of the music - and it was this which caused him to leave the bathroom and come face to face with the mysterious attacker, and to see an Amanda-shaped 'shadow' out the window. Without the scream, he has nothing to explain why he left the bathroom just at that moment. So perhaps he simply incorporated the scream into his story because it was convenient, not because it happened.

Having said that, it's certainly very possible there really was a scream, and that Guede mentioned it because he worried someone else had heard it. I just think that to say "if Rudy said there was one there was. That's it" is greatly overestimating the certainty of it.

The discussion about the scream was about whether it happened when Meredith first sighted Rudy in the flat or at the start of the violence.

The beginning of the fight was seen as more likely.

My opinion is that it's a 98% probability that the scream occurred when the knife was produced.

The discussion was actually about whether the scream happened when Meredith first saw Rudy, or immediately before she was stabbed (perhaps that's what you meant by the start of the violence; I think that moment was probably the end of the violence rather than the beginning, though). But when the knife was produced is certainly one more possibility, even if I wouldn't put a 98% probability figure on any of them. .

 

[codyjuneau]

Frank Sfarzo's back at it:
http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/20/conquered-by-this-theory/#comments

His best article yet in my opinion. Brilliant!

 

[NancyS]

Now it makes sense - after the murder they decided to go home for a sleep and then have a quick flannel wash in the morning before heading out to buy bleach so they could start the clean up - and even though they already had lots of bleach, they wanted more as such a devious pair will always be in need of spare bleach - and then Raffaele ruined it all by accidently misdialing and calling the police instead of Kim and Aggie.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thoughts on the mixed DNA

I only have time for a short comment right now. The mixed DNA in the bathroom may have been created by Meredith's blood falling on Amanda's biological matter that was already there. This type of problem might have been lessened if the forensic police had taken a smaller trace with respect to the bidet, for example. Failing to change gloves or dropping swabs (which happened elsewhere) would have made for additional opportunities to mix DNA.

I think that the police may have tracked Meredith's blood into Filomena's room. I see no evidence that they changed shoe covers going from one room to another, as I have watched the Oggi-hosted videos. However, luminol-positive spots are only presumptive blood, and these tested negative by TMB (and there is no record of confirmatory testing). Amanda's DNA might have been present in either the hall or in Filomena's room; if the former, it could have been tracked in on the shoes of the forensic police.

 

[Rolfe]

Now it makes sense - after the murder they decided to go home for a sleep and then have a quick flannel wash in the morning before heading out to buy bleach so they could start the clean up - and even though they already had lots of bleach, they wanted more as such a devious pair will always be in need of spare bleach - and then Raffaele ruined it all by accidently misdialing and calling the police instead of Kim and Aggie.

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

QUESTION (asked on the hate site): "How many pieces of evidence that is 'consistent with, but not conclusive of' guilt can stack up against someone before, as a matter of common sense, it is no longer reasonable to believe they are innocent?"

ANSWER: If those "not conclusive" pieces of evidence are also consistent with innocence, then you can stack up an infinite number of them and you still have not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but also reason to believe in actual innocence.

It depends what you mean by "consistent but not conclusive". If you stack up enough observations that are 51% likely to be true in a universe where Knox is guilty and 49% likely to be true in a universe where she is innocent, you can get to 99.9% certainty in Knox's guilt. It just takes one hell of a lot of iterations.

However as you say, if all you have are pieces of spaghetti which are equally compatible with guilt or innocence then it's not 51/49, it's 50/50, and you can have as much of that kind of spaghetti as you like and you'll never make any headway towards justified belief in guilt.

Mind you, guilters are a self-selecting group who are bad at rigorous, probabilistic reasoning to begin with, so they are unlikely to get it.

Not to mention that the prior probability of the crime being committed the way the guilters would have it is incredibly low to start with (a once-in-history occurrence) which then becomes lower still once you figure out the correct time of death, and lower still once you find out Knox and Sollecito have an computer alibi for that time.